Trump's Personal Lawyer And Campaign Manager Both Going To Prison

[Final-Fan]

EricHiggin said:

Final-Fan said:

You're continuing to misunderstand.  I am not saying your evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  I am saying that your evidence failed to even faintly suggest to me that it was the littlest bit more likely that Mueller's team leaked info than that the White House leaked it or the goddamn Tooth Fairy leaked it.  You outright refuse to explain what about that evidence was so persuasive to you.  You claimed that the evidence you cited contained "Plenty of reasons that sure make it look like there have been plenty of leaks from Muellers team" but you can't even point to one specific thing in any of the articles.  But I'm supposed to read all of them and read your fucking mind while I'm at it. 

This leads me to suspect that you came at the situation with a preconceived notion of the conclusion and made it your mission to scrape up any evidence you possibly could to support it, while lowering your standard from "evidence Mueller leaked info" to "evidence info was leaked that Mueller had access to, therefore his team must have leaked it and not another group that had both access and a history of leaking".  All this without taking the slightest step back to look at whether the balance of evidence might be cause to re-evaluate your conclusion or at least re-evaluate your confidence level in your conclusion. 

I'm not suggesting the people on the opposite side from you don't also have biases and preconceived notions.  But I'm suggesting that you are letting your bias outweigh the pursuit of truth. 

I provided links, and then made a point, but I did not say something like, 'these links and only these links specifically, are the reason I believe this is the case'. If you want to assume what I actually said means what you think it means, then go ahead, assume away. That of course doesn't change the fact that it was evidence provided, evidence that you do not agree with, and also evidence you skimmed through. I also find it ironic that you joined the conversation during the 'excuses' period, only to then offer your own excuses of why you didn't want, or need to, go over everything. You really think if your not going to go to the effort of completely trying to understand where I am coming from, and just offer excuses to get around it, that I should go out of my way to completely cater to where your coming from? I can't help but wonder if your simply taking someone else's word for it, which isn't acceptable, because if it is, then you might as well just assume that's my stance on the matter which makes it just then. Correct?

If you go to a garage and tell them you want certain things done and parts replaced on your vehicle, period, and when you come back they explain they only did half the work because some parts didn't need replacing yet and they know this because they checked since they are qualified, are you telling me you would pay full price for all the time wasted checking and analyzing and be ok with the situation? You provided a "to do" list and they never followed it. You didn't ask for an assessment of your vehicles condition, you asked for certain things to be replaced. You would either complain and demand they finish the job and toss the hours they wasted checking, or you would never come back to that garage.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and made clear there was a 'to do' list provided, and you still refused to finish it. So your 'garage' has lost my 'business'. Understand?

Your analogy is flawed, a little like your brain.  It's easy enough to fix the analogy, though.  Let's say you brought in a car and told me that all four brakes are completely trashed and need replacing.  I look at it and call you back, saying that I checked the front brakes and they're in perfect condition.  Are you sure you brought me the right car?  There are a few options for you at that point: 
1.  I must have made a mistake, please check the back brakes. 
2.  You're wrong, the front brakes are actually trashed. 
3.  I don't care if they are in perfect condition, replace them anyway. 

#3 doesn't apply because the analogy isn't a 100% match to our situation.  More on this later.  #1 fails because you have never acknowledged that the links I read didn't support your claim.  And as for #2, you've deliberately refused to go with that one. 

Going back to the first paragraph, I never claimed that the contents of the links were what convinced YOU.  In fact, I pretty much said the opposite!  Please pay more attention.  Even if you're a troll, please try to be a higher-quality one.  Anyway, what I said was that (a) YOU claimed that the contents of the links would give a reasonable person good cause to believe Mueller's team was the source of the leaks; and (b) the claim I just described in (a) is wrong (based on analyzing the first two links, and taking the first two as representative of all four, which you haven't disputed). 

Besides, if I said I read ALL FOUR of the links and they ALL were as unsupportive of your position as the first two were, what about your response to my claim would really change?  You'd still brush me off and refuse to answer the objection.  Which is why I didn't waste the time.  I'm not on a fucking scavenger hunt here.  You don't get to say, "here's 100 links, go read them, 10 of them have relevant information", and expect to be seen as the reasonable one. 

"You really think if your not going to go to the effort of completely trying to understand where I am coming from, and just offer excuses to get around it, that I should go out of my way to completely cater to where your coming from?" 
That's a pretty bold twisting of the facts.  It's like you hand me a book and say, "this cookbook explains the dinner I made last night", and I read the first twenty pages, flip through the rest of the book, and say "this is a mystery novel."  Am I really unqualified to comment on whether it's a cookbook or a mystery novel just because I didn't read the whole thing cover to cover?  It it really unreasonable of me to ask you to explain how it's a cookbook before I finish reading? 

You're not paying me.  The only thing I'm asking you to pay is to pay attention to me, and you're asking me to pay attention to you.  If you're really trying to use that analogy to set yourself up as being the one in charge because you're the paying customer, then fuck off.  Maybe that's not how you meant it, but if that's the case then you need to pay attention to your own words. 

Last edited by Final-Fan - on 21 September 2018